This seems to me like it will set quite a precedent. Perhaps it will have import on the constant problems facing online poker play. I’m not sure how I feel about this ruling. I had always thought that it was the monetary aspect that counted something as gambling. Chess – an undeniable game of skill – could be turned into gambling if betting became involved; or at least that’s what I thought. Ina any event, if this decisions ends up having greater ramifications, then I’m sure that poker’s status will be up for far more debate then this single case. But lets not forge the words of the legendary Tom Landry on this subject.

They have vastly improved their program Polaris. It now has the ability to consistently defeat 1 million plus winning poker players.  Now before anyone  starts thinking that humans are out of bussiness at the tables, realize that it is only programed to play one game, texas holdem, against a single opponenet. On top of that, it only claims the top spot in limit games. So far the variables needed to account for anything more complex than heads up play of a single game and limited betting are too daunting for Polaris.

But, it would seem that if it can be done in this limited case, it is only a matter of time before a program powerful enough can be developed to handle more complex situatons. There isn’t anything essentially different about upping the challenge except for sheer complexity level. Once the essential problems are solved, it is simply a matter or processing power and efficient programming to handle anything else.

Unlike other games that computers excel at, poker is about lack of information. Chess, checkers, and the like are relatively easy because everything is right there. All the moves are open for anyone to see on the board. In poker, not only does the opponent not know the other player’s cards, but he has to account for deceptive play. In order to keep others from guessing their hands, players vary the ways in which they telegraph information.

People get scared about technology any time a computer is able to do something better than a human. That’s all nonsense as far as I’m concerned. When people are made to realize that humans really aren’t as special as they like to think, they get a little shaken up. Chess hasn’t been surrendered to microchips and neither will poker.

Check out the original article here.

They may seem silly or inane, but bumbling criminal stories are funny.

Two men in Greenwood Mississippi were caught running illegal video poker machines out of a trailer. Link to the article here

It’s no major felony, just a misdemeanor. What’s funny though is that someone called the police to inform them what was going on, then they apparently staked out the trailer for some time before making their move. The fact that they called it a raid is probably a little much. Were they afraid they might need a SWAT team to go into some hick’s broke ass trailer and slap him with a fine for running running video poker machines? Imagine a couple deputies walking tward the front door. As they approached the sound of bleeps and buzzers mixed with the occasional groan from the hapless players was certainly audible. Then they gave the old cop style knock on the door. When the proprietors (doubtlessly toothless and wife beater clad) of that classy establishment answered, they kicked everybody out and carted off the machines to personally enjoy back at the squad room. Remember officers, don’t chase and gut shot straights.

That’s right, stud poker is once again the object of inquiry here on poker moments. I have said many times before that the first serious poker games I played were 7-card stud and it stands to this day as one of my favorites.

I read an interesting little article that reminded me of some of the reasons why I like it so much. It has different dynamics than hold ‘em which make it challenging for the uninitiated. It basically boils down to the amount of information a player has: LOTS!

Think about it. How many cards do you see in a hold ‘em game? Only the cards that will be available to comprise your hand, a maximum of 7. In stud, you will see more than that before you’ve even made your first bet. Poker is a game of ferreting out information. The more you have, the better your position. The lack of it is the challenge with hold ‘em. Conversely, 7-card stud is an embarrassment of riches. So many cards are thrown out and then pulled from view when players fold, that it is hard to keep track of all the information you have. It’s relatively easy to just remember general odds for particular draws in hold ‘em, but all the cards flying around in Stud make it far more difficult. Your straight draw can be an easy call or an instant muck but only if you noticed what everybody else folded behind you.

So stop playing “the cadillac of poker” once in a while and try out an entirely diffferent poker skill set. Any good athlete cross trains and so should a good poker player. Even if this article did, to my chagrin, claim that it is an old man’s game.

A Mathematics professor in The Netherlands is arguing the status of poker under Dutch law according to this article. The Dutch Betting and Gaming Act recognizes poker as a “game of chance” on par with other casino games. It is not clearly stated in the article what difference this would make, but it seems obvious that its status would change in some way, legally, by moving it from the roulette category to that of chess.

Professor Ben Van der Genugten along with Peter Borm used a simple formula which they believe shows poker’s inherent skill.

Skill = Learning Effect/(Learning Effect + Chance Effect)

Learning Effect is the difference between an experienced player and an inexperienced one. In games of chance, the Skill value is zero. There is no difference between any two players ability to win, leaving a dividend of zero. According to this formula, poker scores a 0.4 which is better than fantasy sports.

Not much else is said about the ratings but it is an interesting development and could potentially have effects on poker’s legal status as a game in other coutries if a precedent is set in the land of wooden shoes.